Google blocked Acer’s rival phone to prevent Android “fragmentation”

Acer signed away rights to make other phones by joining Android alliance.

Reports surfaced yesterday that Google prevented Acer from launching a phone using a rival operating system, by threatening to terminate its Android-related partnership with the hardware company. We've been wondering why ever since, and now Google has provided the answer.

In a statement sent to Ars tonight, Google said that Acer signed away its rights to make Android-like phones not blessed by Google when it joined the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium designed to promote Android and create "greater openness in the mobile ecosystem." Acer didn't sign away all of its rights to make rival phones—after all, it does sell Windows Phones. But Acer wanted to release a phone using Alibaba's Aliyun OS, which can run Android apps but hasn't met the requirements of the Android compatibility program. That's a no-no because it leads to Android fragmentation, in Google's view.

"Compatibility is at the heart of the Android ecosystem and ensures a consistent experience for developers, manufacturers and consumers," Google told Ars. "Non-compatible versions of Android, like Aliyun, weaken the ecosystem. All members of the Open Handset Alliance have committed to building one Android platform and to not ship non-compatible Android devices. This does not however, keep OHA members from participating in competing ecosystems."

A "competing ecosystem" would apparently be Windows Phone, but not Aliyun. Fragmentation has hit Android in the form of many different hardware configurations, and devices running different versions of the operating system. Even though Android code is released as open source, companies that lack a partnership with Google are at a disadvantage. They don't get early access to new versions of the operating system, and they don't get Google branding or the right to use the Google Play app and media store. Some companies, like Amazon, have released Android-based hardware without Google's cooperation, anyway.

Google explained that when Android was launched all members of the Open Handset Alliance signed a "non-fragmentation agreement." Acer was on the verge of releasing an Aliyun phone this week when Google reportedly threatened to end its partnership if it did. Since Acer canceled the launch, it appears Google has gotten its way.

After Google released the statement to Ars, Android Chief Andy Rubin published a blog post explaining Google's reasoning in more detail. Rubin didn't mention Acer or Aliyun, but explained that Google's rules are designed to prevent incompatibilities between different versions of Android. "While Android remains free for anyone to use as they would like, only Android compatible devices benefit from the full Android ecosystem," Rubin wrote. "By joining the Open Handset Alliance, each member contributes to and builds one Android platform—not a bunch of incompatible versions." In a separate post on Google+, Rubin wrote that "the Aliyun OS incorporates the Android runtime and was apparently derived from Android," but isn't actually compatible with Android.

UPDATE: Alibaba has contacted us with the following statement criticizing Google: "It is ironic that a company that talks freely about openness is espousing a closed ecosystem. Aliyun OS is not part of the Android ecosystem, so of course Aliyun OS is not, and does not have to be, compatible with Android. This is like saying that because they own the Googleplex in Mountain View, therefore anyone who builds in Mountain View is part of the Googleplex. Will someone please ask Google to define Android?"

Rubin has also weighed in again, accusing Aliyun of hosting "pirated Google apps" on its app store.

287 Reader Comments

See, we appreciates ya business, Acer. We really does. I gotta say, it's not doin' bad. I mean, you ain't no Samsung, see, but you doin' alright.

What I'm sayin', though, is that it would be a shame if anythin' were to happen to that free OS we give ya. You start looking elsewhere, diversifyin', like, and we could see that as a lack of loyalty. You know what we do to mooks who ain't loyal?

Yeah, I don't gotta say, do I?

Well, I will, enuniciated quite clearly in this email. If you make a non-Android phone we're going to pull our agreement. Good luck with that. I hear Windows Phone 8 is nice this time of year.

Interesting article. I've gone from wanting to say "Now see?! Microsoft didn't get away with this exact same crap! Why does Google?!" to saying "Oh... hmmm... well that might be a point." I'm still not happy with the way Google increasingly is filling the old Microsoft "we need to own every market" mindset, but I'm now thinking that maybe this isn't a legitimate springboard from which to pounce upon that particular bandwagon. (And yeah, I'll take a deep breath and admit that MS got away with that crap for a looong time before they were made to stop). Whew. I'm glad I got that off my chest. I feel better now.

Edit: I agree with the post above mine about Android fragmentation. But... I suspect that there's a difference between fragmenting and forking. Maybe someone has a concrete definition. But more likely, it's like art, where you can't necessarily define it but you recognize it when you see it.

Google's certainly no white knight but I think they've been a bit unfairly criticised here.

If Acer signed a contract/settlement with them and then were going to violate it then it is completely legitimate for Google to threaten to terminate the agreement. In fact if the terms of the agreement were clear and Google cares about them then they really have no choice but to enforce them otherwise they become worthless.

I think Google's finally wised-up a bit in that you can't hold on firmly to your high-minded morals and still play in the vipers pit without getting eaten alive by all the snakes. It'll be interesting to see where Google finally ends up - which principles it's willing to compromise to stay on top and still be the massive influence that they are. I wish them much luck, because while they've certainly made some boneheaded moves I still trust them more than any of the others looking to take them down.

In the meantime Google had better figure out how to counter Aliyun in China and quick, or they're gonna loose that massive market yet again and it WILL ultimately affect us here in the states.

"Google said that Acer signed away its rights to make Android-compatible phones not blessed by Google when it joined the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium designed to promote Android and create "greater openness in the mobile ecosystem."

Um android is the epitome of fragmentation. Sorry google, your bullshit open handset thing didnt work out. Maybe its time to grow a spine and fix it? Nah that would take work...

Whilst on the surface the issues you're talking about are similar to this they are in fact quite different. You're complaining about there being many different versions of Android spread across multiple devices which as far as I know is common for any OS not in a closed ecosystem like Apple has. However this issue is Google acting on a contract violation which prevents partners from creating further fragmentation by selling devices based on unofficial versions of Android.

You complain Google aren't doing enough and then complain when they act on one of their key mechanisms to try to reduce fragmentation. Most confusing...

"Google said that Acer signed away its rights to make Android-compatible phones not blessed by Google when it joined the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium designed to promote Android and create "greater openness in the mobile ecosystem."

Is that an oxymoron or what.

Not really. The openness they're talking about is for users, not for companies. If different forks based on Android start popping up all over, we'll see phones that basically work the same, have the same features, but can't run each others software.

Right now, you might run into an Android app you can't run, but that's due to your hardware generally. It's not due to the fact that you run Bob's Android-like Phone OS instead of Ted's Android-like Phone OS.

Well, I will, enuniciated quite clearly in this email. If you make a non-Android phone we're going to pull our agreement.

Actually no. If you make a forked-Android phone, we're going to pull our agreement.This is entirely reasonable.

Except it's not a fork, according to Alibaba. It's a linux based OS that has the ability to run Android apps, but not using Dalvik (and some stuff about all the apps being hosted in the cloud). This makes it interesting, because the argument has been that so long as people use Google's OS, Google wins somehow. This creates a new OS, leverages the same apps and pushes Google completely out of the equation, probably why they're so pissed at it.

In other words, it's ok for Google to make incomparable versions of Android, that don't run all of the software, but not for someone else making Android phones.

Google's argument would have made sense if they came out with OS upgrades once a year, at the same time every year, so that ODM's had it when they were all coming out with phones at the same time, so that they would all have the same, latest OS on all of their new phones at once. But since that doesn't happen, and Google doesn't enforce ODM's to use the latest OS on their new phones, and update then for at least two, and possibly, even three years, then their argument doesn't hold water.

Well, I will, enuniciated quite clearly in this email. If you make a non-Android phone we're going to pull our agreement.

Actually no. If you make a forked-Android phone, we're going to pull our agreement.This is entirely reasonable.

Except it's not a fork, according to Alibaba. It's a linux based OS that has the ability to run Android apps, but not using Dalvik (and some stuff about all the apps being hosted in the cloud). This makes it interesting, because the argument has been that so long as people use Google's OS, Google wins somehow. This creates a new OS, leverages the same apps and pushes Google completely out of the equation, probably why they're so pissed at it.

according to andy rubin, "Aliyun OS incorporates the Android runtime and was apparently derived from Android".

In other words, it's ok for Google to make incomparable versions of Android, that don't run all of the software, but not for someone else making Android phones.

Google's argument would have made sense if they came out with OS upgrades once a year, at the same time every year, so that ODM's had it when they were all coming out with phones at the same time, so that they would all have the same, latest OS on all of their new phones at once. But since that doesn't happen, and Google doesn't enforce ODM's to use the latest OS on their new phones, and update then for at least two, and possibly, even three years, then their argument doesn't hold water.

It's googles fault that Android is as fragmented as it is.

So I think it's a good excuse, but that's all it is.

That's a fairly misguided argument. Between the carriers twisting everything as much as possible to prevent people easily taking their devices elsewhere and the handset manufacturers refusing to release source code (or even just specs) needed to drive their specific hardware, how is Google supposed to fix that? Apple managed their level of control because they got there first and Jobs insisted upon it. (EDIT: Never mind that they are the only ones making hardware that runs their software so they have complete control end-to-end, whereas Google doesn't - much like MS when there were constant driver issues before MS instituted a "Certified" program.) Google was playing catch-up and had to concede to the carriers' demands and lost that level of control.

How you even find the timing of releases relevant is beyond me - that's the point of the OHA, the ODMs already have early access to the code.

Um android is the epitome of fragmentation. Sorry google, your bullshit open handset thing didnt work out. Maybe its time to grow a spine and fix it? Nah that would take work...

Whilst on the surface the issues you're talking about are similar to this they are in fact quite different. You're complaining about there being many different versions of Android spread across multiple devices which as far as I know is common for any OS not in a closed ecosystem like Apple has. However this issue is Google acting on a contract violation which prevents partners from creating further fragmentation by selling devices based on unofficial versions of Android.

You complain Google aren't doing enough and then complain when they act on one of their key mechanisms to try to reduce fragmentation. Most confusing...

Yes i get the distinction. But google needs to grow a pair, take control of updates out of the cell co and vendors hands and get rid of the multiple android versions. Biggest complaint in android development is the fragmentation. Learn from microsoft and make the os portable over multiple handsets. If htc sammy etc dont like it make just nexus phones and let those guys go twist.

There is absolutely nothing Google can do to counter Aliyun or any other Android fork. That is the power of open source.

Apparently nobody told Acer that.

All Google has done is cool Acer's heels. There are many Chinese companies who are not part of the "Open Handset Alliance" over whom Google has zero leverage. They can make Aliyun OS Phones all day long and Google can't do anything about it.

Well, I will, enuniciated quite clearly in this email. If you make a non-Android phone we're going to pull our agreement.

Actually no. If you make a forked-Android phone, we're going to pull our agreement.This is entirely reasonable.

Except it's not a fork, according to Alibaba. It's a linux based OS that has the ability to run Android apps, but not using Dalvik (and some stuff about all the apps being hosted in the cloud). This makes it interesting, because the argument has been that so long as people use Google's OS, Google wins somehow. This creates a new OS, leverages the same apps and pushes Google completely out of the equation, probably why they're so pissed at it.

according to andy rubin, "Aliyun OS incorporates the Android runtime and was apparently derived from Android".

It would be cool if a journalist stepped up and did some investigating...

So if I understand correctly, the actual problem is that they were shipping something based on a modified version of the Android runtime that was falsely advertised as being Android compatible when they were contractually obligated to ensure that everything they shipped was either completely compatible or else did not support Android?

Um android is the epitome of fragmentation. Sorry google, your bullshit open handset thing didnt work out. Maybe its time to grow a spine and fix it? Nah that would take work...

Whilst on the surface the issues you're talking about are similar to this they are in fact quite different. You're complaining about there being many different versions of Android spread across multiple devices which as far as I know is common for any OS not in a closed ecosystem like Apple has. However this issue is Google acting on a contract violation which prevents partners from creating further fragmentation by selling devices based on unofficial versions of Android.

You complain Google aren't doing enough and then complain when they act on one of their key mechanisms to try to reduce fragmentation. Most confusing...

Yes i get the distinction. But google needs to grow a pair, take control of updates out of the cell co and vendors hands and get rid of the multiple android versions. Biggest complaint in android development is the fragmentation. Learn from microsoft and make the os portable over multiple handsets. If htc sammy etc dont like it make just nexus phones and let those guys go twist.

There is absolutely nothing Google can do to counter Aliyun or any other Android fork. That is the power of open source.

Apparently nobody told Acer that.

All Google has done is cool Acer's heels. There are many Chinese companies who are not part of the "Open Handset Alliance" over whom Google has zero leverage. They can make Aliyun OS Phones all day long and Google can't do anything about it.

Yup. Acer could leave the Alliance if it wished. It's clear they just made a business decision.

Well, I will, enuniciated quite clearly in this email. If you make a non-Android phone we're going to pull our agreement.

Actually no. If you make a forked-Android phone, we're going to pull our agreement.This is entirely reasonable.

Except it's not a fork, according to Alibaba. It's a linux based OS that has the ability to run Android apps, but not using Dalvik (and some stuff about all the apps being hosted in the cloud).

Let's see...Android is a Linux based OS, so an Android fork is also a linux based OS.If you make a minor change to Dalvik and call it "Tall Vick", then it's not Dalvik anymore is it?Of course Alibaba-Store apps are hosted in the cloud. The copy that is stored in the phone's flash after you download it is just a cache...

Um android is the epitome of fragmentation. Sorry google, your bullshit open handset thing didnt work out. Maybe its time to grow a spine and fix it? Nah that would take work...

Whilst on the surface the issues you're talking about are similar to this they are in fact quite different. You're complaining about there being many different versions of Android spread across multiple devices which as far as I know is common for any OS not in a closed ecosystem like Apple has. However this issue is Google acting on a contract violation which prevents partners from creating further fragmentation by selling devices based on unofficial versions of Android.

You complain Google aren't doing enough and then complain when they act on one of their key mechanisms to try to reduce fragmentation. Most confusing...

Yes i get the distinction. But google needs to grow a pair, take control of updates out of the cell co and vendors hands and get rid of the multiple android versions. Biggest complaint in android development is the fragmentation. Learn from microsoft and make the os portable over multiple handsets. If htc sammy etc dont like it make just nexus phones and let those guys go twist.

I think Google's already trying to do this (albeit in a much more gentle manner than you suggest) by working with Sony on the AOSP.

I don't think you do. You can't complain about them enforcing their agreements while also saying they need to grow a pair and make better agreements. Its one or the other

sword_9mm wrote:

But google needs to grow a pair, take control of updates out of the cell co and vendors hands and get rid of the multiple android versions. Biggest complaint in android development is the fragmentation. Learn from microsoft and make the os portable over multiple handsets.

While this sounds like a good idea if you don't think about it too much, it doesn't work in practice since if you want to have just one binary that portable across multiple devices you need to have just one type of hardware. Thats just how operating systems work. MS can do what you want since everyone ships essentially the same phone just in a different plastic box. Same processor, same screen resolution, same peripherals. Thats fine, provided you only want to support one device per operating system version. But not great otherwise, and a huge limitation of WP7 (and one MS is apparently trying to correct in WP8).

Realistically, what Google actually needs to do is clean up their damn code base so that Android supports multiple different processor architectures in the actual AOSP git tree. This whole nonsense of forking each version of Android into a dozen different branches for each processor arch is the actual problem, since it means that each Android update is incredibly expensive to develop for anything other then the reference processor and platform.

Well, I will, enuniciated quite clearly in this email. If you make a non-Android phone we're going to pull our agreement.

Actually no. If you make a forked-Android phone, we're going to pull our agreement.This is entirely reasonable.

Except it's not a fork, according to Alibaba. It's a linux based OS that has the ability to run Android apps, but not using Dalvik (and some stuff about all the apps being hosted in the cloud). This makes it interesting, because the argument has been that so long as people use Google's OS, Google wins somehow. This creates a new OS, leverages the same apps and pushes Google completely out of the equation, probably why they're so pissed at it.

according to andy rubin, "Aliyun OS incorporates the Android runtime and was apparently derived from Android".

It would be cool if a journalist stepped up and did some investigating...

So if I understand correctly, the actual problem is that they were shipping something based on a modified version of the Android runtime that was falsely advertised as being Android compatible when they were contractually obligated to ensure that everything they shipped was either completely compatible or else did not support Android?

That's actually interesting. For some reason I thought the reason for this was that if they're making an Android phone, they couldn't make Android-fork phones, but that's not really what this article, the android blog post, or rubin's post say.

I think you're right -- if your Android fork doesn't pass the compatibility test suite, you can't sell the phone if you're part of the OHA. That *seems* to imply that you could sell a fully compatible but forked phone/tablet (like the Kindle Fire) and still be part of the OHA and still sell your Android(tm) phones/tablets as well.

That makes this less worse than I thought, though I wonder if it has actually been tested in practice.

Well, I will, enuniciated quite clearly in this email. If you make a non-Android phone we're going to pull our agreement.

Actually no. If you make a forked-Android phone, we're going to pull our agreement.This is entirely reasonable.

Except it's not a fork, according to Alibaba. It's a linux based OS that has the ability to run Android apps, but not using Dalvik (and some stuff about all the apps being hosted in the cloud). This makes it interesting, because the argument has been that so long as people use Google's OS, Google wins somehow. This creates a new OS, leverages the same apps and pushes Google completely out of the equation, probably why they're so pissed at it.

according to andy rubin, "Aliyun OS incorporates the Android runtime and was apparently derived from Android".

It would be cool if a journalist stepped up and did some investigating...

So if I understand correctly, the actual problem is that they were shipping something based on a modified version of the Android runtime that was falsely advertised as being Android compatible when they were contractually obligated to ensure that everything they shipped was either completely compatible or else did not support Android?

That's actually interesting. For some reason I thought the reason for this was that if they're making an Android phone, they couldn't make Android-fork phones, but that's not really what this article, the android blog post, or rubin's post say.

I think you're right -- if your Android fork doesn't pass the compatibility test suite, you can't sell the phone if you're part of the OHA. That *seems* to imply that you could sell a fully compatible but forked phone/tablet (like the Kindle Fire) and still be part of the OHA and still sell your Android(tm) phones/tablets as well.

That makes this less worse than I thought, though I wonder if it has actually been tested in practice.

You were right the first time; if an OEM makes an officially sanctioned Android device they are contractually obligated not to create a device based on a fork of the OS.

That's actually interesting. For some reason I thought the reason for this was that if they're making an Android phone, they couldn't make Android-fork phones, but that's not really what this article, the android blog post, or rubin's post say.

You can make Android forks. You basically have to. Essentially every ICS device that isn't based on the TI OMAP 44xx is an Android fork, since officially thats all the Android source supports. If you want to use Android on a Qualcomm phone for instance, you don't download the Android source from Google. You download the Qualcomm fork. Or the Nvidia fork. And so on.

That is Android's ugly linux baggage. The idea that you just keep forking for each new hardware platform. Which works well in theory, and is very "open", but quickly becomes ugly if you want to have regular updates.

Y3k-Bug wrote:

You were right the first time; if an OEM makes an officially sanctioned Android device they are contractually obligated not to create a device based on a fork of the OS.

I don't think you do. You can't complain about them enforcing their agreements while also saying they need to grow a pair and make better agreements. Its one or the other

sword_9mm wrote:

But google needs to grow a pair, take control of updates out of the cell co and vendors hands and get rid of the multiple android versions. Biggest complaint in android development is the fragmentation. Learn from microsoft and make the os portable over multiple handsets.

While this sounds like a good idea if you don't think about it too much, it doesn't work in practice since if you want to have just one binary that portable across multiple devices you need to have just one type of hardware. Thats just how operating systems work. MS can do what you want since everyone ships essentially the same phone just in a different plastic box. Same processor, same screen resolution, same peripherals. Thats fine, provided you only want to support one device per operating system version. But not great otherwise, and a huge limitation of WP7 (and one MS is apparently trying to correct in WP8).

Realistically, what Google actually needs to do is clean up their damn code base so that Android supports multiple different processor architectures in the actual AOSP git tree. This whole nonsense of forking each version of Android into a dozen different branches for each processor arch is the actual problem, since it means that each Android update is incredibly expensive to develop for anything other then the reference processor and platform.

Microsoft does it with windows and direct x. Ties into your 2nd paragraph. If google wants android to be the "windows" of phones then deal with it correctly. 4.0 is the first android build ive uesed that felt lke a real os. This is on a touchpad, vibrant and a friends nexus 7 which was real nice. But now being treated to an iphone and pad3 from work makes me realize how bad it is in android land. 4 and over great... Under that and wtf. Update situations make it even worse.

I think you're right -- if your Android fork doesn't pass the compatibility test suite, you can't sell the phone if you're part of the OHA. That *seems* to imply that you could sell a fully compatible but forked phone/tablet (like the Kindle Fire) and still be part of the OHA and still sell your Android(tm) phones/tablets as well.

Not really, they can easily find/create technicalities to withhold compatibility approval.

Ironically, Google is using compatibility approval as a club, just like Sun/Oracle did/does for Mobile Java.